Vegesoc

[Insight]

Was casually flicking through Vegesoc's leaflet the other day, when I stumbled upon this interesting sentence commenting on where one can shop in St.Andrews depending on your morals as a veggie/vegan/animal rights campaigner:

***Am afraid I must paraphrase, as I have lost the leaflet***

"Cancer Research and British Heart Foundation especially deserve to be boycotted as they perform unnecessary animal testing - British Heart Foundation has cut muscles on dogs without anaesthetic."

Controversial? What do others think? I'd like to know what 'unnecessary testing' is.

Should animal testing be halted in the medical field, or should human life be held above animal welfare above all costs?

[JonCore]

http://maddox.xmission.com/eatme.html

Disclaimer: the views of this site are not my own. For those of a nervous disposition, this site should not be viewed.

Ta

[md25]

As horrid as animal testing can be the thought of contracting cancer is even nastier. Call me a bastard but I'd have a row of squealing rabbits over a lymphoma any day.

[David Bean]

[s]Insight wrote on 00:32, 26th Oct 2004:
"Cancer Research and British Heart Foundation especially deserve to be boycotted as they perform unnecessary animal testing - British Heart Foundation has cut muscles on dogs without anaesthetic."

Well, I think there's a pretty weak link there between the premise and the conclusion. Even if what they say is true - how are we to conclude that the animal testing is unnecessary, and why on earth wouldn't they be using anaesthetics? - to claim that our disagreement with some of their practices provides legitimate grounds to boycott the entire organisation is absurd. These are charities, and they do a lot of good work aside from that which we find disagreeable. I, for one, find the political activities undertaken by Cancer Research to be thoroughly objectionable, but if I wanted to do something about it I'd campaign for change in this specific area, I wouldn't just boycott it.

In any case, there's absolutely no point in a few individuals unilaterally boycotting an organisation because they have their own axe to grind, unless the boycott is publicised widely enough to draw attention to the problem they're trying to solve.

[hr]
"And all the people rejoiced, and said: 'God save the King! Long live the King! ...May the King live forever!'" - Handel, 'Zadok the Priest'

[Mr Comedy]

Meat is really tasty!
Mmmmm...

[KateBush]

I support the heart foundation unequivocally because heart disease runs in my family and has killed both my grandmothers.

BUT I don't support animal testing for medical reasons. Now, you're probably all thinking it's cos I'm a vegan and I love animals, can't bear to think of fluffy wittul bunny rabbits in pain. Well, no, actually. Give me a choice between a pain free bunny and having my Gran back and its an obvious answer. BUT very few tests done on animals these days seem to work. Indeed, most money spent on this seems to be wasted, as a large proportion of the tests seem to be repeats of old ones.

All this testing on animals, and we STILL don't have the cure for even the common bloody cold! As I've quoted on here before under the animal testing topic, a cure was supposedly found for arthritis in mice in the late 70s/early 80s...but when they gave it to humans, it did TERRIBLE things to them. Testing on animals seems pointless, especially as their systems are so different to ours. Surely the only way to know how things will work on humans is to test on humans? Call me harsh, call me silly, but look at it this way:

imagine you find a cure for flu in a bunny rabbit. you give it to people. they react differently because they're not a bunny rabbit (funny, that) tests and research WASTED

OR

you take some absolute bastard like Ian Bradley/Myra Hindley (I know she's dead, but imagine if she was alive) and test it on them. It does terrible things to them. You don't give it to anyone else. You don't damage other people.

Greater good?

But then I always have seen things in black and white terms. I'm so notorious for it it's not even funny.

As an arts student, I'm not really clued up on current trends in animal testing and medical research. It would be really interesting if a scientist could join in the debate and give us some factual info...

[hr]The rose of all the world is not for me
I want for my part
Only the little white rose of Scotland
That's sharp and sweet and breaks the heart
--Hugh MacDiarmid

[Insight]

Animal testing is not simply a case of feeding new medicines to rabbits and monitoring the results - developing new medicines involves long and complex procedures, of which bunnies are only a small part - they are also tests on a wider range of animals.

Considering we share almost ALL our DNA (am talking extremely high 90%) with other mammals, the chances of any significant problems being found in the early stages is good. Humans are also tested, once the animal stage is clear.

The Thalidomide scandal of the 60's happened because testing and research wasn't thorough enough.

I wont even comment on testing on criminals only as I'll get too angry and my wishy-washy, namby pamby liberal side persona will need a lie down.

[lifesothersecret]

[s]KateBush wrote on 10:17, 26th Oct 2004:

"most money spent on this seems to be wasted, as a large proportion of the tests seem to be repeats of old ones."

Ever heard of continuous assessment?

"All this testing on animals, and we STILL don't have the cure for even the common bloody cold!"

This would be virtually impossible due to its many different forms, hence your body not developing a natural resistance.

"As an arts student, I'm not really clued up"

Hmmm... see what happens when you edit out all the chaff.

Not meaning to be offensive, I too care about animals, am vegetarian, and strongly protest testing for cosmetic reasons.
Further more there has been much scandal surrounding cancer research: conspiracy theorists propose that a cure will never be found because it has become such a huge industry providing so many jobs.
HOWEVER!!!! medical testing on animals IS essential. I assume that your comments on criminals were spur of the moment as what you are proposing would be tortuous and I imagine you are not the type to favour the death penalty, supplementary to which, there aren't enough "evil" criminals around to support it. Unless you are suggesting we revert to the methods used in the days of penecillin testing where, rather than animals, black people were used.
Without animal testing, pharmacological development of drugs would be take even longer and as it stands the average time span is fifteen to twenty years. Bear in mind, the drugs discovered will be used to treat animals as well.

[Slash wannabe]

I love animals, they are so tasty.

[hr]IMAGE:www.pushposters.co.uk/new/thumbs/a/S_a06015.jpg
Is there no standard anymore?

[Haunted]

..and so the battle for the moral high ground rages on

[KateBush]

[s]Slash wannabe wrote on 11:21, 26th Oct 2004:
I love animals, they are so tasty.

[hr]IMAGE:www.pushposters.co.uk/new/thumbs/a/S_a06015.jpg
[i]Is there no standard anymore?
[/i]

deja vu....you've said that somewhere else, i remember it

[hr]
The rose of all the world is not for me
I want for my part
Only the little white rose of Scotland
That's sharp and sweet and breaks the heart
--Hugh MacDiarmid

[Mr Comedy]

Alright, lets bring the science in.

- More than 2.7 million live animal experiments were authorised in Great Britain in 2002. This number has halved in the last 30 years.

- British law requires that any new drug must be tested on at least two different species of live mammal. One must be a large non-rodent.

- UK regulations are considered some of the most rigorous in the world - the Animals Act of 1986 insists that no animal experiments be conducted if there is a realistic alternative. Also the law cares for animal welfare, meaning that animals are not unduly harmed.

- Almost every medical treatment you use has been tested on animals. Animals were also used to develop anesthetics to prevent human pain and suffering during surgery.


- Animal testing has helped to develop vaccines against diseases like rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and TB. In addition, antibiotics, HIV drugs, insulin and cancer treatments rely on animal tests. Other testing methods aren't advanced enough.

- There are no genetic differences in lab animals and humans that cannot be factored into tests

- Operations on animals helped to develop organ transplant and open-heart surgery techniques

Animal testing is the best method of testing, and the one that is most used. The basis of it as a method of research means that we understand all the variables, something that Kylie misunderstood.
Animal testing is much more economical than other methods of testing.
Alternatives are expensive and often have inconclusive results.

To suggest that we test drugs on criminals is a violation of almost every law on human rights, and is not a tenable position.
(Sorry Kylie, you know that I couldn't resist it!)

[DJ R]

ahhh the voice of reason!

Just to point out to who ever it was that say we share 90% of your DNA with some mamals, it's a bit of a flawed argument as you share about 92% of your DNA with a bananna.

[donnamatrix]

The animal tests that the BHF perform on animals are unnecessary - there are non-animal alternatives (e.g. heart models instead of using real hearts) readily available. Check out http://www.britishheartlessfoundation.com for the details.

As for Cancer Research, it, like many medical-oriented charities, uses animal tests where alternatives are available. The word 'unnecessary' is not controversial when taken in the context of the types of tests that are available. What is more controversial is the case of where it comes down to a 'your dog or your mother' debate - I think most people would choose their mother. But there ARE non-animal alternatives to many tests that are currently performed on animals, and organisations such as the Dr Hadwen Trust are working very hard, with great success, at encouraging the development of non-animal lab tests.

The 'places not to shop' section of the Vegesoc leaflet was intended as a guide for those who wanted to avoid actively encouraging animal testing.

For a list of charities that don't test on animals, go to: http://www.britishheartlessfoundation.com/cdont.html

[Mr Comedy]

Taken from said website:

In one BHF test, dogs' chests were cut open and their blood was circulated out of their bodies and back again, in order to allow blood pressure to change in the neck arteries quickly. The experimenters then came to the conclusion that a person bending down and suddenly standing up could experience dizziness and fainting!

In the case of people with heart problems. The circulation of blood outside of the body is a simulation of this, as people with weak hearts do not get blood pumped as quickly.

In another experiment, dogs' blood vessels and nerves were cut away, the dogs were implanted with electrodes and they were injected with other dogs' blood. This was done to find out about blood storage in the liver, even though the experimenters acknowledged that dogs store their blood differently than humans do.

However, there are several common threads. These were the ones under incestigation.

In a gruesome experiment on cats, the animals' chests were cut open, their back legs were skinned, tubes were inserted into their necks and legs and they were shocked and injected with sodium cyanide to test muscle reflexes and blood vessel activity.

Sodium cyanide is a common tracer.

...animal experimentation enriches laboratories and scientists but drains money from relevant and effective projects that could really help save lives.

These are all experiments that could save peoples lives with the knowledge gained. Therefore the evidence falls.
If you want to make a case, it ought to be more convincing than that.

[KateBush]

Hey, if they could stop me fainting and battering myself I'd be happy! My blood pressure keeps dropping, has done for over 9 years and no one has ever really been able to figure out what to do to stop it, short of telling me to smoke, eat lard and drink compulsively!

[hr]The rose of all the world is not for me
I want for my part
Only the little white rose of Scotland
That's sharp and sweet and breaks the heart
--Hugh MacDiarmid

[Rilla]

I just got this email right now and thought it was suitable....

11) If we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made
out of meat?


>12) I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all
nervous and give the wrong answers.

(no offense intended....)

[hr]Anything War can do, Peace can do better

[mottthehoople]

I believe that you should steal a mouses mind in order to fing the cheese.

[Steveo]

[s]mottthehoople wrote on 17:45, 26th Oct 2004:
I believe that you should steal a mouses mind in order to fing the cheese.


Mice do not actually like cheese.

[hr]
[s]What a beautiful world this will be .... what a glorious time to be free[/s]

[Haunted]

so why do they keep getting caught in those traps baited with it?